Well, if you have but never quite understood why, this story might explain it …

A few months ago an eminent Swedish Professor was on TV talking about statistics.

In the interview, he casually pointed out that in Sweden, the average number of legs was 1.99 recurring.

When the host of the show looked at him curiously, the Professor explained that it was because some people in Sweden had only one leg while others had none before adding – with a straight face but admittedly, a twinkle in the eye – that because of this, the majority of the Swedish population had an above average number of legs.

Like this:

Related

I don’t know whether John will approve but I certainly do. This is a great story to highlight the inherent danger of decision making by statistics. What a shame this wasn’t around back in the early 90’s when I was working with the Department of Trade & Industry. Never have I met such a bunch of statistic groupies and addicts.

That said, you’re writing about a phrase I despise because it reveals that the quoter of it usually doesn’t understand it , certainly doesn’t understand numbers and, worst of all, can’t be bothered to rectify that situation.

Inaccurate statistics can be used to perpetrate lies, accuaret but statistically insignificant numbers can be used to bolster dubious arguments (as beauty adverts so often do) but the problem is not with statistics, it’s with the innumeracy of the majority of both customers and executives.

Which is why I have to accept Rob is good at pitches because he builds in and then dismisses counter approaches so the competition are marginalised before they even have a chance to present. You can spot the guy with the lawyer background.

2 good points there Dave. I’m not sure if you meant that, but they are. Agencies are as myopic with information as government representatives trying to get their own way and Robert’s approach to pitching is brilliant in the way he sells alternative directions before highlighting their flaws and the only possible route forward.

I love this Rob and good on the professor to highlight the dangers of statistics when in the wrong hands. Statistics are very important but sadly, they often end up becoming the weapon of choice for manipulators and the lazy.

Good post though, reminds me tracking studies where they cross reference people who saw the advertising with brand preference – when of course, it’s the preference that often drives noticing the advertising, not the other way around.
There’s some classic statistical jiggery pokery in IPA papers too – the amount of winners who set out a clear problem, but them just twiddle to prove sales effect, not that solving the problem drove the sales is rather amusing

Funny you should say that, I’m currently reviewing 76 ‘effectiveness papers’ and what some people think is ‘proof’ is possibly more depressing than hearing how much money Justine Bieber made last year.